United States Vs Alvarez Case

United States v. Lopez was a landmark case, being the first United States Supreme Court case, since the New Deal, to set limits on Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause of the United State Constitution. United States v. Lopez dealt with a previous decision made by the Supreme Court called the “Gun-Free Schools Zone Act of 1990,” and whether this act was constitutional. In other words, is Congress given the power by the Constitution to regulate guns in schools under the Commerce Clause?

President George H.W. Bush signed the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 into law on November 29, 1990, making it a federal offense for “any individual to knowingly possess a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.” Subsequently, in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), the Supreme Court held that the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 was unconstitutional as it violated the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. In reaching this 5-4 Supreme Court decision, Chief Justice Rehnquist, in concurrence with Justices O’Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas wrote the majority opinion, correctly determining that Congress lacked authority to pass this law as, even if replicated throughout schools across the United States, the carrying of a gun to school was not a sufficient economic activity that would substantially affect interstate commerce. Contrarily, Justices Breyer, Stevens, Souter and Ginsberg dissented, opining that the Act’s prohibition against firearms in schools had a sufficient connection with interstate commerce and thus, Congress’ application of the Commerce Clause was appropriate. In finding a substantial connection between gun-related school violence and interstate commerce the minority dissenting opinion relied on evidence that gun-related violence near schools is a commercial problem that interferes with the quality of education and thus relates to economic viability, giving Congress

In the case of Martinez v. Houston McLane Company 2013, the plaintiff Shirley Martinez sustained an orbital fracture and corneal lacerations to the face after being struck by a ball hit during batting practice prior to the game. Martinez was there on behalf of the Houston Astros who provided donated tickets for members of the Texas National Guard. The seats where located in a part of the stadium that was not protected by the netting located behind home plate. That netting only protected 5,000 (of stadium capacity 41,000) seats located down the third and first base lines. At the time of the accident, Martinez was descending down a flight of stairs with a child in her arms to their seats. Upon reaching her seats she was notified by a Astros park employee that she was unable to have her stroller at the seat. In complying with the request, upon hearing screams of warnings of a inbound ball. Martinez wrapped up the child and shielded it an then struck in the face with the ball. She later sued the Houston Astros for negligence, which was rejected by a trial court. She would go on to appeal the ruling, in which time the state of Texas appeals courts. Noted that during trail, the courts refused to “impose a duty of care upon the stadium owners to screen all seats or to warn about balls hit out of play beyond screened areas.” Instead the courts stated that, “a stadium owner owes only a limited duty to spectators to protect them from baseballs hit into the stands.” An more

The case of Gonzalez vs. Raich in 2005 caught the interest of many people. Angel Raich is a California resident who has a medical condition that causes her to be in excruciating pain. Angel 's physician had tried numerous treatments and medicines to help her with the pain, but nothing has seemed to work.

I believe it is explicitly clear that this business owner should continue to grow and sell marijuana from his store. According to the state law in California he is operating completely within the confines of the law. However, now the debate begins, does the federal law concerning marijuana supersede California’s state law; I believe it does not. According to article 1 section 8 of the U.S. Constitution the Congress of the United States has the power, “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”. Therefor since the marijuana is not being sold across state lines, the federal government should have zero jurisdiction in the matter. But because of the Supreme Courts decision in Wickard v.

The case of United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411 (1976) was recognized by the Supreme Court as a warrantless arrest with probable cause in public places did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Since this individual was robbed in a public place a warrantless arrest can exist. However, the officer must have probable cause such as adequate reason that the person had committed a felony crime before an arrest is executed. Therefore, probable cause can be determined by a statement from the victims, witnesses, personal knowledge, observation of the officer, reliable hearsay, and informant tips. Nevertheless, if the crime occurs in an officer present, then a misdemeanant that breach the peace does not need a warrant. On the other hand, each state has

Lopez, the justices had to decide if the Gun-Free School Zones Act has an effect on interstate trade and, according to congress, intrastate commerce too. The US Government’s stand was that the absence of gun violence in schools would indirectly lead to economic growth because a greater education results in a better economy. However, it could be argued that poor economy leads to less money proportioned to schools, slowing education which results to increase in crime and gun violence. The decision of this case upholds that firearms possession does not influence education and the national economy and also still limits Congress from police powers thru the Commerce

The final argument Alexander makes is called “Poor Excuse,” which that police use minor traffic violations to conduct what is called a “consent search” or a “safety search”. A consent search is when an officer "asked" for consent to search someone’s vehicle. Many people do not refused, but some do refuse, and that is when some officers will bring drug-sniffing dogs around someone’s vehicle and tell the dog in German to bark, which allows the officers to search the vehicle for suspicion of drugs. The Supreme Court has ruled in Rodriguez v.United States that walking a drug-sniffing dog around someone's vehicle (or someone's luggage) does not constitute a "search," and therefore does not trigger Fourth Amendment scrutiny. In addition to a “consent

I attend the United States VS. Miller case; this case was the last one in a series of multiple case that have taken overtime, and the judge would come to rule over the defendant on whether he is going to be staying in custody or be able to be on parole with an ankle monitor.

On October 23, I went to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to attend the sentencing in United States v McClain. The judge was Reggie Walton and the room was sixteen, sixth floor. Initially I could not enter into the building because I only had my Paraguayan ID and they wanted to see my passport. I also show them my American University ID to prove my identity. The security guard consulted with his superior about my case and after a few minutes of deliberation the superior allowed me to get into the building. The reason was that I am an American University student and he said we visit the court all the time. However, he told me that for the next time I should bring my passport.

After reading the case over and over again I have come to the conclusion that this was an interesting case to make a decision on due to the lack of substantial evidence. In reference to the case it brings me to the very first question of the assignment. What acts did Garcia do that amounted to a conspiracy? The concern in which brought up the idea of conspiracy in this case is the fact that Garcia association with his fellow gang members. This is a general agreement among gang members to support one another in fights against rival gangs can constitute sufficient evidence to support a conviction of conspiracy to commit assault when the conduct of the alleged conspirators is otherwise insufficient.

In our society today it is viewed almost as a sin to carry a handgun into or around a public school. With school shootings bombarding news and media it seems that our whole society is against the usage of any weapon, especially guns. Even with the second amendment and commerce clause applied, congress still seems to control the usage of any weapons a person may own through laws and regulation. However in the case of United States v Lopez, one man, Alfonzo Lopez, appeals to the Supreme Court and may forever affect the relation Congress has within public schools.

Based on Rubio’s medical condition and age, the implications of this sentence remain nothing short of a life sentence. Furthermore, the stressed involved when considering the foregoing during this case added significant pressure.

U.S. v Salerno (1987) established that there is not absolute right to have bail set. Salerno argued that the 1984 Bail Reform Act violated his 5th amendment due process rights. the 1984 Bail Reform Act allowed federal courts to detain arrestees prior to court if the government could prove that individual was potentially dangerous to other people in the community. In Selarno's case, he was connected to a crime family and had ties to crime. The court held that the act was constitutional because pre-trial detention could be the only potential solution to a pressing societal

Lopez (1995) handled the issue of carrying a gun in a school zone and whether Congress had the ability to regulate that. The court, in a 5-4 decision, said no, that the act of carrying a gun does not substantially effect commerce. Congress overstepped its bounds. Justice Breyer dissented claiming a three prong approach of which the court should consider "significant effect", the act as a whole, and whether Congress had a "rational basis." Morrison (2000) struck down, in a 5-4 decision, the constitutionality of the Violence Against Women Act claiming that the there is no activity regulated that can be argued under the Commerce Clause. Justice Breyer's dissent points out the "mountain of data showing the effects of violence against women on interstate commerce" and that the court should defer to Congress. Gonzalez (2005) supports Congress's Commerce Clause powers by finding the Controlled Substances Act constitutional and Justice Steven's opinion stated that Congress had the power to regulate local activities that are part of a "class of activities." Swift (1904) questioned the ability of Congress to regulate a meat trust but the 9-0 decision solidified Congress's ability to regulate commerce due to the indirect and direct affects on interstate commerce. Here we see the beginning of the "stream of commerce." Schechter (1934) is opposite of this decision. The poultry in this case was found to not have entered the stream of